blast_radius

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: its scope ('every file and line'), its purpose ('prevents orphaned code'), and an additional warning behavior for low usage. It lacks details on return format or potential performance implications, but for a read-only analysis tool, the disclosed behaviors are sufficient.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and usage context. Every sentence adds value, with no waste or redundancy. The structure is efficient and scannable.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has two parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The description covers the tool's purpose, usage timing, and an additional behavior, which is adequate for an agent to invoke it. It does not explicitly describe the return format, but this is inferable from the described tracing behavior.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters having clear descriptions. The description adds no parameter-specific guidance beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states a specific action ('Traces every file and line where a specific symbol is imported or used') on a specific resource (symbols across the codebase). It also frames the tool's purpose in context ('Before deleting or modifying code') and differentiates it from general search/deps tools by focusing on blast radius and orphaned code prevention.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Before deleting or modifying code, check the BLAST RADIUS.' It also adds a secondary use case for low-usage symbols. However, it does not name alternative tools or specify when NOT to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.